Environment Committee on June 18th, 2008

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I understand.

I have another question for you. When your president testified before the committee on the estimates, he said—and this was stated clearly in his text—that there had been some project assessment, but there was also a responsibility to do a strategic environmental assessment.

Was a strategic environmental assessment of this project done?

[Steve Burgess]

Strategic assessments are mandatory when the government is putting forward a policy or a plan that may have some environmental impact. Strategic assessments do not apply to the tar sands project.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I understand that, but you must acknowledge that even in the case of a project assessment, some strategic considerations are included in the environmental assessments.

In Quebec projects are carried out and when the time comes to do so, we look at what the policy says and what are the government plans and programs. Furthermore, we check to see whether or not the proponent follows government policies.

To the extent that our efforts to fight climate change are enshrined in an international commitment—there is a signature at the end of the document and there is a Kyoto Protocol—my question is whether this project was assessed? I understand that there is not a specific project assessment.

In the review, what consideration did you give to the strategic aspects of the project? Do you understand what I mean?

[Steve Burgess]

Oui.

Do you want to answer that?

[Steve Chapman]

I think I understand the question.

Certainly in the environmental assessment reports developed by review panels, they do question whatever international obligations or agreements are pertinent to the project, including issues that deal with air quality. Our review panels certainly do look at the cumulative environmental effect. They don't look at these projects in isolation; they look at the interaction of these potential effects coming from one project with other existing projects or future projects. It is a mandate of our review panels to do that.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I want to make sure that the information is accurate.

Have you also concluded that this project, as initially presented, would correspond to the equivalent of 800,000 additional cars on the highways? Given the mitigation measures presented by the proponent, how much CO2 would this project emit if it were implemented?

I would image that when this project was reviewed by the federal-provincial committee, the proponent said that there was indeed a problem and would have indicated what these mitigation measures would mean. If I'm not mistaken, production should start in 2010. Can you provide us with the estimated amount of CO2 that will be generated as a result of this project?

[Steve Chapman]

Certainly the panel was aware in terms of the total estimate of greenhouse gas that could be emitted, but I'm not prepared at this time to say what that would mean in the equivalent number of cars on the road, if that is your....

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, your time is up.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Burgess, I'll just give you a minute to finish your thought there in terms of Mr. Bigras' question.

[Steve Burgess]

I would like to add something. We can certainly provide you with this information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You can just provide that to the clerk, and then he can circulate it. Thank you.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

There are a couple of angles I want to take us on here. First, when I'm talking to mining companies or energy companies that are dealing with your office, there's a general interest in getting the most expedient type of process possible, the one with the shortest timeline and the one with the least amount of rigour and public hearings and all the rest.

From my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, to trigger one process versus another, one type of screening level to another, it's often based on total tonnage being presented in the project, or there are various criteria you folks use. How do you get around the angle that some companies will play, which is the underbidding process? They say, “You say it's 1,000 tonnes a day. Anything above that will bump us up to a more arduous process. We're going to say 990 tonnes, go through our environmental assessment at a lower level, and then, lo and behold, one year after the projects start, we're up to 1,500 tonnes. Who knew?” How do you get around that?

[Steve Burgess]

That is a very challenging issue. We certainly can't question sometimes the information we're being provided with by proponents.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Even if you suspect it might be...?

[Steve Burgess]

There may be situations where we suspect that things may not be adding up. I know we've had situations in the past where different pieces of information from the company say different things.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

What they say to their investors will be something very different from what they're proposing to you and the government.

[Steve Burgess]

What we do is a bit of due diligence to make sure that, on the basis of the information available, the process that applies is the appropriate one. We don't have access to insider information or any other information, so we have to rely on publicly available information or information that's provided to us by the proponent.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

This is a strange moment for me. I'm trying to understand the way the investment cycle works. Whether you folks pick a screening or a comprehensive study can in effect make a decision that costs or does not cost the company many months and sometimes millions of dollars of production.

I've sat with companies and they say, “Here's our estimate if we go through the lowest-level process, the quickest one. This is how much money we can return back to shareholders. If we get bumped up to a more arduous process, it's less money.” We can be talking about millions and millions of dollars, particularly if you get into some of the more extensive projects.

Say a project gets approved at a smaller screening level but then bumps up into some larger, more significant category. It seems strange to me that there's no way for you to request that the government pull their licence or have some sort of consequence to essentially lying to the regulators and getting around the system rather than playing fairly.

[Steve Burgess]

We certainly can do that in situations where, during the course of the environmental assessment, we see that the project has changed to the point that it requires a different type of assessment.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm talking about once production has started, though. That's often when modifications are made.

[Steve Burgess]

If the project changes, if it expands, for example, following approval, we have limited ability to react, I have to say.

The nature of the triggers will sometimes influence what action can be taken. If we have a regulatory trigger, a Fisheries Act authorization, for example, for the harmful alteration of fish habitat, and that harmful alteration of fish habitat has occurred, and the expansion has no bearing on that, then there's really no trigger to have us renew or undertake a new environmental assessment. But if the project changes, and if it triggers a new or modified federal approval of some sort, then we have the opportunity to undertake an assessment.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I guess I'm speaking more about once the horse is out of the barn.

I'm going to spend some time on this Cumulative Effects Management Association. It's in your deck here. It's funded by industry and the provincial government of Alberta.

[Steve Burgess]

Yes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Is it housed within Natural Resources Canada?

[Steve Burgess]

No. CEMA is an independent.... It's a stand-alone body. It's a multi-stakeholder body. I think there are something like 41 organizations in it, including environmental groups, aboriginal groups, industry representatives, and government--federal and provincial. Its responsibility is to address systemic issues related to....